The Contributions of Georges Florovsky, Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff to the Development of Orthodoxy in America1

Home , Alexander Schmemann, Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 57 (2016) Nos. 1–4, pp. 149–170

Paul Ladouceur

The contributions of Fathers Georges Florovsky (1893– 1979), Alexander Schmemann (1921–1983) and John Meyen- dorff (1926–1992), three eminent theologians, educators, and churchmen, to the development of Orthodoxy in America are enormous, spanning a number of different but interrelated areas. Following a brief biographical overview, this article pre- sents an overview, necessarily somewhat schematic, of their contributions to Orthodoxy in America in terms of five broad themes, concluding with some remarks on their impact on Christian theology in general.

1 This is a revised and expanded version of a paper delivered at the “Pilgrims and Pioneers Symposium” held September 30 and October 1st, 2011, in Princeton NJ, under the sponsorship of the Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas, the School of Christian Vocation and Mission at Princeton Theological Seminary, and the Fr. Georges Florovsky Orthodox Christian Theological Society at Princeton University. I am grateful to Dr. Paul Meyendorff and to the Rev. Dr. Oliver Herbel for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article. 150 Paul Ladouceur

A. Biographical Overview

A brief outline of their biographies is useful to situate their work in the context of their lives. Biographical material for the three is limited, but there are two extensive biographical essays on Georges Florovsky.2 There are no formal biographies of either Alexander Schmemann or John Meyendorff – only short biographies and scattered remarks here and there. There are also several studies of the theology of Alexander Schmemann which include biographical material,3 and the personal diaries of Alexander Schmemann covering the last ten years of his life.4 These diaries contain considerable material concerning his earlier life, especially his childhood and adolescence in Paris. There is an urgent necessity for full-length biographies of all three. As a general remark concerning our three subjects, note that they share several important characteristics:

(1) They were of Russian culture by their family origin and upbringing. (2) All were part of the great Russian emigration that fol- lowed on the Russian Revolutions of 1917 and more particularly the triumph of the Bolsheviks in the civil war of 1918–1920.

2 Cf. Andrew Blane, “A Sketch of the Life of Georges Florovsky” in Andrew Blane, ed., Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Church- man (Crestwood NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997); and George Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948– 1965),” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 11 (1965). 3 Cf. my “Bibliography of Father Alexander Schmemann” in Paul Ladou- ceur, ed., The Wedding Feast, Proceedings of the Orthodox Colloquia 2007, 2008 and 2009 (Montreal: Montreal Institute of Orthodox Theology and Alexander Press, 2010), 151–62. Michael Plekon’s Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002) contains chapters on Schmemann and Meyendorff. See also Juliana Schmemann, My Journey with Father Alexander (Montreal: Alexander Press, 2006). 4 Alexander Schmemann’s Journal is written mostly in Russian, with some English and French. The English version is a selection of about forty percent of the original; the Russian and French editions are almost complete. Development of Orthodoxy in America 151

(3) All spent an important part of their lives in Russian émigré circles in Paris, the intellectual and religious centre of the Russians in exile. (4) Each had an intimate association with the Saint Ser- gius Orthodox Theological Institute, founded in Paris in 1925 as a centre of theological higher education and for many years the only school of Orthodox theological education situated outside countries of Orthodox tradition. (5) All three emigrated from France to the United States, where they spent the latter part of their lives. (6) They were also intimately involved with St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York, where each taught and each served as dean. (7) All were committed to Orthodox participation in the broad ecumenical movement of the mid-twentieth cen- tury and were personally involved in ecumenical undertakings at different levels.

But these common characteristics must be tempered by major differences among the three theologians in terms of ancestry, personalities and interests, and also in their ages. Both Georges Florovsky’s father and mother were descended from clerical families, whereas Alexander Schmemann and John Meyen- dorff were descended from minor nobility, who often frowned on clerical vocations. The three do not belong to the same generation. Florovsky was born in 1893, educated in pre- revolutionary Russia, and went into exile as an adult. Schme- mann and Meyendorff were both born in exile, Schmemann in Estonia in 1921 and Meyendorff in France in 1926. They were thus “second-generation” exiles. Although Schmemann and Meyendorff were unquestionably of Russian culture, they never lived in Russia, in contrast with Florovsky, who left Russia in 1920 when he was 26. Both Schmemann and Meyen- dorff received their secondary education in the demanding French collegial system and were as much at ease in French culture as in Russian culture, and, later in their lives, in Ameri- can culture.

152 Paul Ladouceur

Georges Florovsky

From its foundation until 1945, the Saint Sergius Institute was dominated by the great personality of Sergius Bulgakov, and it was through Bulgakov’s initiative that in 1926 Georges Florovsky was invited to teach patristics at the Institute – even though Florovsky’s own academic background was history and philosophy. It was Bulgakov who initially suggested that he study and teach patristics. Although Bulgakov and Florovsky respected each other, they were theological opponents, especially over Bulgakov’s commitment to the controversial doct- rine of sophiology.5 Florovsky taught patristics at St Sergius until 1939 and he spent the war years in Yugoslavia. In December 1945 he found his way back to Paris, but the situation had changed dramati- cally: the patristics chair was now occupied by Cyprian Kern and Bulgakov had died in July 1944. Florovsky began teaching dogmatic and moral theology at St Sergius, but many of the older professors still resented what they considered to be Flo- rovsky’s unwarranted criticism of Russian thought in general, especially in his monumental, if opinionated, The Ways of Rus- sian Theology (1937), and of the much-beloved Bulgakov in particular.6 Uncomfortable in this situation, Florovsky readily accepted an invitation to teach dogmatic theology and patristics at the fledgling Saint Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in New York in 1948, where he became dean in 1949.

5 For an overview of relations between Florovsky and Bulgakov, see Alexis Klimoff, “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy,” St Vladi- mir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005); and Paul Ladouceur, “‘Aimons-nous les uns les autres’: Serge Boulgakov et Georges Florovsky,” Contacts: Revue française d’orthodoxie 64 (2011). 6 Georges Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviya, [The Ways of Russian Theology] (Paris-Belgrade, 1937); English version (revised) in The Col- lected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vols. V and VI (Vaduz: Buchervertrieb- sanstalt, 1972). In his introduction to the 1980 reprint of Puti russkogo bogosloviya, John Meyendorff, who studied under Florovsky in the late 1940s, writes that the psychological impulse and inspiration which underlay Florovsky’s writings was the rejection of sophiology. Cf. “Predislovie” [Pre- face], Georges Florovsky, Puti russhogo bogosloviia (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1980), 2. Development of Orthodoxy in America 153

In 1955, after only six years as dean, he was asked to leave Saint Vladimir’s, following conflicts with ecclesiastical autho- rities, among them Schmemann. After his departure, Florovsky returned to the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under the Greek Orthodox archbishop of America. Although he severed his canonical attachment to the Russian Orthodox diocese in North America (known as the “Metropolia”), he continued to frequent churches of the Metropolia. In early 1956 Florovsky was offered a position at the Harvard Divinity School, where he taught patristics and Russian culture and history. He also taught at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological Seminary in Brookline, Mass. In the autumn of 1964 he retired to Princeton, New Jersey, as visiting professor of Slavic studies and religion at Princeton University. He died in 1979 at the age of 86.

Alexander Schmemann

Alexander Schmemann was educated in the Russian Cadet School in Paris, and then in the French lycée system. He studied theology at Saint Sergius from 1940 to 1945, initially while Sergius Bulgakov was still dean.7 Schmemann then taught Church history at the Institute from 1945 until 1951, being ordained a priest in November 1946. It is likely that Schmemann never actually studied under Florovsky, but was rather the latter’s junior colleague on the teaching staff for about three years. He may have attended lectures given by Florovsky during this period, since Schmemann was still a graduate student at the time. But Schmemann became unhappy with the atmosphere at the Institute and in 1951 he accepted an invitation from Florovsky to teach history and liturgical theology at St Vladi- mir’s Seminary. Schmemann received his doctorate in 1959

7 Schmemann held Bulgakov in high personal regard, although he had no interest in Bulgakov’s sophiology. Bulgakov nonetheless influenced Schme- mann’s thought in subtle ways that have yet to be fully explored. See Schme- mann’s “Tri Obrazi,” Vestnik RSKHD, 101/102 (1971), 9–24; trans. ‘Trois Portraits’ [Father Serge Bulgakov 1871–1944], Le Messager orthodoxe (1972).